[Islam-Online- Politic]

Madeline Albright is probably the most eloquent U.S. Secretary of State in this century. She possess a magical power to threaten like a pirate, yet manages to phrase her words like a saint who is concerned with the plight of the poor and innocent. One of her latest ventures, which reflects the United States' well-known bigotry, and of course her offensive yet articulate wordings, is her threat against Iran, and repeated accusations of their anti-Semitism during a speech before The American Jewish Committee on May 4.

As the 13 Iranian Jews' trial progresses, United States government officials have accelerated their intimidation campaign against Iran, linking the outcome of the trial to the strengthening U.S.-Iran ties, and the sanctions. Shrewdly, however, the U.S. insists on legitimizing its threats by associating them with its quest for true democracy and Human Rights. U.S. officials, including Albright and State Department spokesmen, have frequently questioned and criticized the Iranian legal system's "due process." They disapproved of the secrecy of the trial and demanded a "dialogue" with the Iranian government. The U.S.'s frenzy over the 13 Iranian Jews accused of spying on Israel is a repeated episode of the unbalanced American perception of not only Israel vs. Arabs and Muslims, but also Israel vs. Mankind.

Let us assume that the United States' official accusations of Iran's legal system are founded. First, if the Iranian legal system is unfair for its lack of "due process", such unfairness must be distributed equally, between Iranian Jews, Sunni and even Shiite. And since the legal system in Iran is the product of the Iranian revolution, decades ago, one must assume that such injustices were inflicted repeatedly upon many innocent Iranians of various ethnic and religious backgrounds. Unlike what the U.S. claims, its assault on the Iranian legal system has little to do with the efficiency or the fairness of the system, and much to do with the ethnicity of the accused. Such a perception challenges the United States' alleged concerns for the legal rights of Iranians, and it shows that those championing democracy are neither just nor fair themselves.

Many of us must be aware of such American fallacies by now, simply because the United States is investing little time and effort in hiding its preferential foreign policy. But what makes the U.S. defense for due process even more interesting is the fact that the American legal system is miserably failing to implement due process itself, particularly in the cases of Arabs and Muslims. Most Americans would agree that wealthier defendants have a much greater chance of being proven innocent before an American court than a poor defendant. As wealth plays a substantial role in influencing the legal system, race does, some argue, to a much more noticeable degree. Being black and poor is likely to lower a defendant's chance of receiving a fair trial in the courts, in the south as well as the north. These realizations, which have shaped and continue to influence American society, are never expected to be challenged by Iran and the international community as a whole.

In addition to the high ratio of blacks and minorities vs. whites in American jails, the U.S. government has indeed surpassed its past injustice when it introduced the law of "Secret Evidence" which could simply indict and deport a person without offering an explanation. Secret Evidence is the irrational outcome of the Anti-Terrorism Bill of 1996, and has been solely targeting Arabs and Muslims in the United States. Although several American judges have declared that such a law is unconstitutional, the law is still used, and an estimated 20 Arabs and Muslims are held, without charge, fighting against a blind legal system engulfed by unfairness. The U.S.'s discriminatory practices cannot be justified by any means. The lawyer of an Iraqi man held in a American prison, after being charged with Secret Evidence, has finally succeeded, three years later, to pressure the prosecutors to disclose some of the tightly guarded information held against his client. One of the accusations was that the Iraqi man had visited "Kabul" several times. Although such a piece of evidence should be legally worthless to begin with, the real tragedy is that the Iraqi prisoner did indeed visit "Khabul", a border post between Syria and Iraq, which can hardly be considered a training center for Osama bin Laden's followers.

Although the United States' legal system, which burdens the poor, minorities, and of course Arabs and Muslims, is far from just and fair, the U.S.'s anti Iran campaign has little to do with its genuine desire for justice. Instead Albright and other American officials' defamation of Iran are, as it has always been, politically motivated, and mainly inspired by the U.S.'s excessive support of and sympathy toward Israel. There is no shame in standing for the just cause of the innocent, and there is no shame in demanding justice and defending human causes worldwide. But it is shameful to strive for justice, and to threaten to inflict pain on those who disregard your advice/threats, while you yourself fail repeatedly in providing such just system. It was perhaps heartwarming for Ms. Albright to receive such warm and lengthy applause from her audience of the American Jewish Committee on May 4. But I cannot help but wonder whether these ovations have truly distracted her from seeing the hypocrisy of her own words, time and again.

Ramzy Baroud is a freelance writer from Seattle, Washington. For feedback, e-mail ramzy5@worldnet.att.net

Asia & Africa